A number of Athonite sources indicate that Mount Athos is a restricted area. As early as 883 AD, Emperor Basil I the Macedonian issued a sigillion prohibiting shepherds from entering the area of the Athonite peninsula with their flocks, decades before the founding of the first monastery, the Great Lavra, when the majority of inhabitants on Athos were still hermits.
This was followed by: the Typikon of St. Athanasios the Athonite (959), the founder of cenobitic monasticism in Mount Athos, the Typikon of Emperor John Tzimiskes (972), the Typikon of Emperor Constantine Monomachos (1046), the 3rd Typikon (1394), and the chrysobull of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1406). All of the above make explicit reference to the prohibition of entry into Mount Athos for children, adolescents, eunuchs, female animals, and—implicitly yet clearly—women (in the event that they attempted to enter disguised as eunuchs or young boys).
Similar references can be found in various sources of Athonite law during the period of Turkish rule. Among them, one can find the sigillion of Patriarch Joachim (1498), the Typikon of Patriarch Jeremiah II (1574), the Typikon concerning the Protos (1780), the Seventh Typikon of Patriarch Gregory V (1806), the internal regulations of the Xenophontos Monastery from 1839 and 1905, and the "General Regulations of Mount Athos" from 1912.
In these regulations, the focus is primarily given on the prohibition of entry for children, eunuchs, and female animals, rather than women, possibly because such violations were not as frequent. Thus, the closure of Athos to women is not explicitly stated in the regulative documents of Mount Athos precisely because this rule was already well known, respected and strictly enforced.
Consequently, Mount Athos has been closed to women according to the ancient customs and holy traditions of this place, respected not only by monks but also by all laypeople as an unwritten norm.
I. The prohibition against the entry of women is affirmed by a specific provision of the Constitutional Charter, which states that the entry of women into Mount Athos is prohibited in accordance with the ancient established customs of the region (art. 186 of the Charter). However, this provision was incomplete from the perspective of public law, as it did not foresee any sentence for its violation. Among all the possible penalties, the only one that was both feasible and legitimate to impose was the expulsion from the territory of Mount Athos of any woman who violated the regulation.
The provision was later supplemented by a law that introduced a specific penalty for illegal entry to Mount Athos. The cause for this was the disembarkation of several women on the Athonite coast during a cruise to Mount Athos, which took place in the context of the 9th International Congress of Byzantine Studies held in Thessaloniki in April 1953. Through legislative act No. 2623 of September 19, 1953, Article 43b was added to the Legislative Decree of September 10/16, 1926, stipulating that violation of Article 186 of the Charter—regarding the prohibition of women entering Mount Athos—would result in a prison sentence ranging from two months to one year. Today, under the general provisions of the Criminal Code, this penalty may be substituted with a monetary fine.
II. From time to time, various concerns have arisen regarding the constitutionality of the legislative act confirming the closure of Mount Athos to women.
At first glance, the prohibition of women's entry to the Athonite state may seem contradictory to the idea of equality and/or a restriction of personal freedom. Both the idea of equality and the right to free movement are included not only in the Greek constitution but also in many international agreements that have been approved by Greece and are an integral part of Greek law. Μoreover, according to constitutional provisions, they take precedence over any law that contradicts them (art. 28, para. 1 of the constitution).
1. The idea of equality guaranteed by the constitution obliges the legislator to treat equally all Greek citizens in the same or similar conditions and prohibits a more gentle or harsher treatment even as an exception.
However, the rule of equality does not exclude different legislative regulations for cases occurring under different or special circumstances. On the contrary, in such cases special treatment is justified by particular and differentiated reasons: social, economic, religious, etc. — provided that this different treatment is objective and based on general and impersonal criteria.
Something similar applies in relation to the avaton of Mount Athos. Entry is prohibited for all women without exception. A violation of the rule of equality would occur if entry were allowed only for certain categories of women or only for women meeting specific criteria.
2. As for personal freedom, which is protected by the Constitution, it—like any personal right—is not unlimited. The constitution clearly states that freedom of movement may be restricted when and as prescribed by law. Of course, the reasons for restricting personal freedom, particularly freedom of movement, cannot be arbitrary. They must be justified by compelling reasons that protect important public or social interests, while a judge must verify the legitimacy of these arguments.
Thus, just as no one questions the constitutionality of other restrictions on freedom of movement, such as prohibitions on entering strategically significant areas or bans on hunting and fishing in certain territories or during specific times of the year, there does not arise a question on the constitutionality of the prohibition of women's entry to Athos.
III. In summary, the various concerns surrounding the possible unconstitutionality of the restriction of access to Mount Athos can be effectively refuted, demonstrating that the avaton (access ban) does not violate constitutional provisions.
1. For a long time, it has been a common belief in academia that the prohibition of women's entry to Mount Athos is based on art. 105 of the Constitution. It was thought that the constitutional provision confirming the special privileged status of the Athonite community includes the concept of self-governance and the rule of the closure of Athos to women contained in the Constitutional Charter. The latter, by constitutional references, must be recognized by the Greek parliament in the form in which it was approved by the twenty ruling monasteries, without the possibility of making any changes.
2. However, beyond the points mentioned above, there are additional arguments supporting the legitimacy of enforcing the avaton and the prohibition of women's entry into Mount Athos. These arguments are based on two pillars.
The first one is the concept of religious freedom. The closure of Mount Athos to women is based on the constitutionally confirmed personal right to freedom of religion (art. 13 of the constitution), which is also protected by a number of international agreements recognized by Greece. This right, which is qualitatively distinct from mere state religious tolerance, entails, among other things, the obligation of the state to ensure the peaceful exercise of religious faith.
For all monks—and especially for those practicing asceticism in Mount Athos—the preservation of virginity constitutes a cornerstone of monastic life. It is linked to their way of worshipping God, strengthens their religious beliefs, and therefore forms an essential element of their religious conscience, the freedom of which is constitutionally protected.
.jpg)
The second pillar is the protection of property. As noted, the ownership rights in the area of Mount Athos belong only to the twenty monasteries, "among which the entire Athos peninsula is divided" (art. 105, para. 2 of the constitution).
This position implies that the entire Mount Athos peninsula is the private property of the twenty monasteries, to whom it has belonged for centuries. The prohibition against the expropriation of this property, as stated in the same provision, reinforces this viewpoint. The purpose of the inalienability of the Athonite peninsula is to prevent both the Greek state from appropriating any part of the territory and the monasteries themselves from selling their property to third parties. Thus, the territory of Mount Athos constitutes a private area, subject to the exclusive authority of the monasteries.
Therefore, based on these considerations for the protection of their private property, the monasteries and the Holy Community of Mount Athos have the right to deny entry to their territory to any person, and thus to all women as well.
